Taxacom: Management of "unnecessary" names in databases
Tony Rees
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 12:58:56 CST 2022
2022
OK, I can see a potential complexity here, that in general I have thus far
avoided, but could come up in future.
In my biodiversity informatics "world view", a name instance (name as
published in a certain work by a certain author, with year) initially
exists once only in my system, either at the rank it was published, or at
the rank as used in the particular later taxonomic treatment being followed
if that is different, but the spelling of the name is unchanged (we are
talking about zoology only here; in botany, changes in rank are accompanied
by a change in authorship so we thus have a different "name" in such
cases). So let's consider a hypothetical name in zoology proposed as a
subgenus (B-us) of a genus (A-us). In my present treatment, I ignore the
subgeneric rank so just have B-us (with author+year) as "unaccepted" at
genus rank, represented as a synonym of A-us for taxonomic purposes (since
that is where the type species of B-us is placed). Later, if B-us is
upgraded to be an accepted genus, then its status changes but its rank
remains the same (since I entered it at genus rank in the first place).
Suppose, however, that in this particular sector of IRMNG, I or some later
editor decide that it would be useful to include subgenera, for example as
a means to further divide otherwise very large genera. So now, I am
guessing, I would need 2 entries for B-us: one as an unaccepted genus, and
one as an accepted subgenus. similarly, I would need a second entry for
A-us as another accepted subgenus (I am thinking that possibly WoRMS may do
this already, not sure). So my concept of "name instance" would have to be
enlarged to encompass "name plus author plus year plus rank", whereas at
present, rank is not invoked in my concept.
So you are asking, in the hypothetical example described above, if at some
point A-us as subgenus becomes redundant (while A-us as genus does not),
should it be kept on the system? I am thinking it would probably become
deprecated - i.e. remain on the system at that rank, but not displayed to
public users, for 3 reasons: first, and old record pointing to this name
could be redirected elsewhere (to whatever is its current equivalent);
second, someone with relevant edit privileges could still find it (to know
it was once entered, and avoid ever creating it again if needed); and
third, if the redundancy was ever removed (new taxonomic decision, or
record deprecated in error), the name instance could be revived on the
system without difficulty.
Maybe this does answer your question now (or again, maybe not!).
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Bz%2BKDiNw7MICBUroIoQd%2FROL46wib6sNG%2BKQ2dFgyyU%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fjoXgEpcpqklf9MJHGWyiIpgdYjqZCoCmK5ydlSwB3A%3D&reserved=0
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 04:46, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> My practice (in IRMNG, data structure is similar to WoRMS) has not
> involved ranks between the strict Linnean ones very much (i.e. subfamilies,
> superfamilies, etc.), however sometimes a family is demoted to a subfamily,
> an order to a suborder, etc. In these cases I keep the formerly used name
> instance, at its former rank, but synonymise it with whatever the current
> equivalent would be, based on the current placement of the type [genus],
> and add a note regarding the current status; for genera that have become
> subgenera, the same, based upon the current placement of the type species.
> Actually genera (in zoology only) are a special case, in that all proposed
> genera and subgenera belong to the "genus group" and (where available) can
> be used at either rank according to the preference of later workers; so
> while IRMNG does not invoke zoological subgenera in its taxonomic
> classification (at this time, anyway), these names are all entered
> regardless of original proposed rank, however only those currently used as
> valid genera are treated as accepted names [at genus level], the ones
> currently valid only at subgenus (no change in spelling or authorship
> involved) are treated as unaccepted and synonyms of their containing genus
> (again, according to the current placement of their type species). So in
> these cases a particular name (subgenus or genus) would only be held once
> in IRMNG, at this time only, and its treatment could shift according to
> future taxonomic actions (or recently proposed ones not yet caught up with).
>
> For ranks higher than genus e.g. family <> subfamily, as you say typically
> the spelling of the name would change (e.g. ...idae vs. ...inae in zoology)
> but since IRMNG does not aim to be comprehensive at ranks higher than
> genus, normally the ''inae" forms (subfamilies) would not be entered,
> although the database structure will accept them if a future editor wishes
> to do so for a particular group (and, do it consistently I guess). Some
> order names (and above) do become sub-ranks without a change in spelling,
> however; also in some cases to date I have included intermediate ranks
> (subclasses, occasionally infraclasses, a few suborders) in the IRMNG
> taxonomic tree where it seems helpful and is an established practice, such
> as in Mammalia (e.g. see
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dtaxdetails%26id%3D11922423&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rCn5zBqsVraZGzVfAMx5ZLR%2BzhG%2F4Kfle4eNuLlU1nw%3D&reserved=0 for subclass
> Theria), so the practice of omitting subordinate ranks is not immutable.
>
> Hope this helps, maybe it does not!
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Bz%2BKDiNw7MICBUroIoQd%2FROL46wib6sNG%2BKQ2dFgyyU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 02:36, Scott Thomson via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> I keep them but make them redirect to the now used name thats relevant.
>> This way if someone searches for the term they still find the relevant
>> valid name.
>>
>> It's kind of a combination of keeping the data in case things change and
>> considering all possibilities for end user usage.
>>
>> Cheers Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 9:23 AM Carlos Alberto Mart?nez Mu?oz via Taxacom <
>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Taxacomers,
>> > Sometimes it happens that scientific names at a given superrank or
>> subrank
>> > are subsumed into each other. For a pair of two names, this often means
>> > that the only remaining name becomes "unnecessary" as it contributes
>> > nothing to the classification.
>> > For example, in a family with two subfamilies, one subfamily is
>> considered
>> > to be nested within the other and therefore synonymized. The result is
>> one
>> > family with one subfamily, the latter being now "unnecessary" from the
>> > classification point of view.
>> >
>> > Sometimes it happens that a subordinal name is elevated to order,
>> including
>> > a slightly different ending. No new suborders are proposed. The old
>> > suborder name is now "unnecessary" for the classification.
>> >
>> > How are you handling these "unnecessary" names in your databases? Do you
>> > keep them in the backend but make them invisible in the frontend? Do you
>> > tag them with some qualifier or status? Do you delete them? Something
>> else?
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > Carlos A. Mart?nez Mu?oz
>> > Myriatrix <
>> >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyriatrix.myspecies.info%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ixxFm7wp9IX1wCklDu4bybzUjJTaeWekP%2BIgj7eRRjw%3D&reserved=0
>> > >
>> > ResearchGate profile
>> > <
>> >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vdfZvTSMDviLmF116UzT%2FeWwym2sPSLZQ%2F7ZnKr%2Fy9s%3D&reserved=0
>> > >
>> > Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
>> > <
>> >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KcJSEKGgE0ckt7SFTjpfGflFAx7ZVIZ46fa1y2m1LL0%3D&reserved=0
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> >
>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> > https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PbtTvE63VhmqbN4Cq9gkKqUS2joDLEz0bBz20zfi87k%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
>> > about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C081f59530a26405ff4e108dad172a112%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638052587526447095%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PbtTvE63VhmqbN4Cq9gkKqUS2joDLEz0bBz20zfi87k%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
>> about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list